While Ethical Naturalists believe it holds great importance as it can convey facts and help us to understand ethical theories, there are those who strongly disagree with this. For example Intuitionists, such as Moore, believe that our intuition is more useful when wanting to know how to act morally than knowing the definitions of ethical terms. Although Non-Cognitive theories disagree with the factual content of ethical statements, it is clear that they still see some significance in ethical language. However rather than seeing it as facts, they accept that morality is subjective and suggest that the importance of ethical language is provided by the emotions conveyed in the phrases used. Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful.
Meta-Ethics is a branch of ethics which is concerned with the language that is used in ethical arguments. Many would say that if we do not know what we are talking about, then there is not point to ethical debate. This differs from normative which deicides whether or not something is bad or good and gives us a guide for moral behaviour. Meta-ethics is about normative ethics and tried to make sense of the terms and concepts used. The terms good and bad are used a lot in day to day sentences - but what do they really mean?
But a drawback would be that you wouldn't be living for goodness or for a deity, you would be living for yourself and this could seem selfish to some. But if you are really doing things that you feel are truly right, then it shouldn't seem selfish. I know that people don't always choose the right decision in life though. That would be
We live in a world where we expect people to assist us in our time of need although we refuse to help those who truly need our assistance. Instead of making excuses, pointing fingers and placing blame on those less fortunate for their short comings ,we should learnt to embrace others and uplift them . At the end of it all giving to others in need is the only moral and ethical thing we can choose
Some people challenge societies’ beliefs but those are few. It is in human nature to follow the rules of a society and satisfy the need to belong to a community. When one breaks those laws becomes an outcast and is rejected by society. Living alone is difficult therefore, most people tent to obey or compromise ideas of others. However, people who do stand up and defend their belief system create new movement, which eventually brings changes for the better.
Knowing. People normally think that they do not need any knowledge to care for someone and that good intentions are enough. But, from Mayeroff’s point of view, in order to care for a person one must be able to understand another’s needs and must be able to respond to a person properly. Good intentions alone do not guarantee this. According to Mayeroff, to care for another person, one must know who that person is and what his/her powers and limitations are, what he/she really needs in order to grow.
The Relationship Lens is focused on processing the systems needing for an ethical organization. It protects the basic liberties of all people Everyone is entitled to their rights no mater what their income status is as well as the right to a fair process. The Reputation Lens is focused on whether we are exhibiting the virtues which are prized in the community for people who are in our roles. These ethical lenses affected my decision making in that it ensured that I was open and honest in all facts of these cases. Ethical perspective is not always about making everyone happy, because it is virtually impossible to make everyone happy.
This acknowledgment suggests that somewhere deep inside he accepts the story with the people is true, but it does not matter. Instead of viewing this illusion as anthropomorphicus, he quite simply understands the human actions as the actions of animals, and so it is uncomplicated for his mind to try and comprehend the situation. By seeing people as animals, he is able to save his own
People are always ask themselves if the actions they do are good or not. People claim egoism as a wrong thing to do. However, is an egoist action means that no altruistic actions can be made or it is possible to do both? A suggestion can be made that maximising self-interest does not benefit all of the people and therefore not sufficient for morality. However, it is clear that egoism is compatible and can overlap with moral actions.
On the other hand, not everyone changes when they are faced with some thing difficult as their morals righteousness allow them to be unaffected by conflict. Encountering conflict can change certain individuals in disputing ways although some are able to obtain their own beliefs. The necessary makeup of every living creature is to want to survive. Many people in human nature will resort to any lengths in order to protect their self – interests and livelihood. Hence, when conflict happens, even the most ethical and virtuous people will forsake their integrity.